Majority
p. 477The People against Gardner.
Headnote
Where a person stole a horse in the state of Vermont,and lied into this state, where he was apprehended, with the horse in his possession, it was held, that he could not' be tried in this state fdr the felony; but was to be considered merely as a fugitive from justice.The prisoner was indicted and convicted of felony at the sessions in Washington county, for stealing a horse. On the trial, it appeared, that the original taking of the horse was in the state of Vermont, but that the prisoner was apprehended in Washington county, with the horse in his possession. The question was submitted to the court, whether the prisoner could be tried and punished in this state for the felony.
We are of opinion, that the prisoner cannot be tried for this offence in this state. When the original taking is out of the jurisdiction of this state, the offence does not continue and accompany the possession of the thing stolen, as it does in the case where a thing is stolen in one county, and the thief is found with the property in another county.[1] (2 East's Pleas of the Crown, 774.) The prisoner can be considered only as a fugitive from justice, from the state of Vermont.
* See contra, Tyng's Rep. (Mass.) v. 2. p. 14. the Commonwealth v. Andrews.